GO-2026-6029 CVE-2026-28740 GHSA-2m9v-5q2g-58vq

Gitea: Git LFS object reuse allows non-Code access to authorize private source objects in code.gitea.io/gitea

High Go

Severity: 7.1 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.32%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.32% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: Available; 2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Affected versions

Go

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
code.gitea.io/gitea	`< 1.26.3`	`1.26.3`
gitea.dev	`< 1.26.3`	`1.26.3`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

code.gitea.io/gitea Go → `1.26.3`

go

go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.26.3 && go mod tidy

gitea.dev Go → `1.26.3`

go

go get gitea.dev@v1.26.3 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: High
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28740

Packages

github.com/go-gitea/gitea

Timeline

Jul 3, 2026 Published
Oct 25, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-rcr6-4jqh-j84m Gitea: Remote Code Execution via diffpatch Git Hook Installation	Critical Known exploited	Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-fq2p-5p22-8g6j Gitea: Public-Only Personal access tokens scope bypass in Organization and Permission Endpoints	Medium	Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-2wm4-vwp6-v7xc Gitea: SSRF via Migration Asset Downloads Bypasses hostmatcher — Reads Internal Files and Cloud Metadata	High	Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-3r5c-2xxx-h872 Gitea: Webhook Authorization Header Returned in Plaintext via API	Low	Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-frpw-3h2q-4jj6 Gitea: Cross-Repo Information Disclosure via Org-Level Actions Run/Job APIs	Medium	Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-q423-49rw-g9mh Gitea: GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp ClearRepoWatches fix not applied to API EditRepo path — sister code path retains stale watches on public->private	Medium	Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-h56g-4qw7-2mxg Gitea: Public-only API token restriction is not enforced on team API routes	Medium	Also affects gitea.dev
GHSA-prr9-9mp4-5gp2 Gitea: Private org member list leaked via /members API endpoint — incomplete fix for PR #38145	High	Also affects gitea.dev

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor